What’s your call?
| 1NT | ||||
| 2♣ | 2♦ | 2♥ | 2♠ | 2NT |
| 3♣ | 3♦ | 3♥ | 3♠ | 3NT |
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Redbl | Pass |
As Lawrence predicts, the panel is all over the place with this hand. Lawrence also thinks this is one of the “nicest” problems to show up in this column. If by “nicest” he really means nice, several of the more outspoken panelists disagree.
“You are unlikely to make 3NT,” Lawrence offers by way of analysis. “Even game in a minor is unlikely if North has a 2–4–3–4 hand. If partner has big extras, games can be made, but I do not know how to bid to game with clear expectations. Sadly, having said all this, a slam in one of the minors is possible if North has a 1–4–5–3 hand type. The answer to this question seems to be one of percentages. I am guessing to pass. I won’t like the expected trump lead, but even with that, plus 300 will be a top or bottom, and I am hoping that it will be worthwhile in the long run.”
Walker passes, too. “The ♠9 talked me into it.”
“The opponents probably have an eight- to 10-card heart fit, which they may or may not find,” observe the Sutherlins. “If West passes, we will probably be able to collect plus 300 at a minimum. Because game is far from certain, this should be an okay result.”
Cohen takes this all a bit too much to heart. “Pass. I’m not jumping for joy, as this could be ridiculously wrong. I’m just passing because the alternatives make me even less joyous.”
Boehm passes with the same fatalistic outlook: “There may be a better spot, but we may not find it.”
The 2♦ bidders aren’t much happier. “I hate this problem!” shrieks Meyers. “I think it is close between 1NT (appealing at matchpoints) and 2♦, but I would bid 2♦.”
“All bids are flawed,” agree the Joyces. “2♦ will keep it low and let us see how things develop.”
Colchamiro, too, is taking the low road with 2♦. “It feels like lefty is about to bid hearts, their likely nine-card fit. After 2♥–pass–pass, I’ll compete with 3♣, and if they then try 3♥, I’ll double. Passing 1♠ doubled seems wrong. Even if I take four tricks, partner will need three just to go plus 100.”
Robinson tempers his 2♦ with the recognition, “If I cuebid, I’d expect partner to bid 3♥ and we could easily get overboard.”
Rigal says, “At a different vulnerability, I’d strongly consider passing.” 2♦ allows him to get his suits in at an efficient level, hoping partner has extras and can bid on. “Sneaking sympathy with a 1NT call,” he says, “but I don’t play that as constructive here, so that won’t necessarily help us get to game.”
The 1NT bidders include the Gordons (“No, we do not like it.”), Stack (“If the opponents were vulnerable, this would be a pass.”) and Kennedy (“I’m tempted to pass, but I’m not sure we can get plus 300.”).
“Ugh!” groans Falk. “2♠ is tempting, but it propels us into the stratosphere, as we are committed to raising 3♣ or 3♦ and guessing 3NT over 3♥, and we just don’t have the values for that.”
Sanborn bids 1NT saying, “We are unlikely to miss a game if partner cannot bid, and this might leave me well placed if there is another round of the auction.”
Giragosian leaps to 3♦. “I have a great hand for diamonds or clubs and possibly notrump if partner has the right hand.”